HC Deb 19 May 1953 vol 515 cc1903-35

4.45 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I beg to move in page 2, line 26, to leave out "twelfth," and to insert "fourth."

This is not about small beer; it is about big beer. This Clause deals with strong beer and lager beer, and the effect of it, unless I have misunderstood it, is this. At present brewers pay their duty for a month's brewing on the 25th day of the following month. What is sought to be effected by this Clause is to postpone that payment in the case of strong beer and lager beer for a further 11 months, subject only to one condition, that the beer should be kept for three months in storage.

Here, again, there was a certain coy reticence by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject of beer upon which, as a rule, one expects them to have something to say. This passed unnoticed in the Chancellor's Budget speech, and it was only on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill that the Financial Secretary let us have a few precious words explaining his reasons for giving this 11 months' credit to brewers. What he said was: Clause 2 deals with the subject of beer. So far, I agree with him. He went on to say: It enables payment of duty in respect of high strength or lager beers to be postponed up to 12 months. So far, I agree with him. He then said: The reason is that these beers, I am advised, require to be kept to mature for a certain length of time after brewing. There are no facilities for storing beer for home consumption in bond, and there is thus "— I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) will take note of this— a certain discouragement against the production of beers which require longer storage, if the duty is payable, as at present, within a few weeks."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 584.] He also said that there was a question of competition with the Continent.

Those reasons seem to me to be completely inadequate. Indeed, I do not regard them as reasons at all. What happens is that the beer requires to be stored for a certain time. There is a certain time in the Clause, which apparently is three months, and the brewers who so store it qualify for this additional advantage. If it is not so stored, they do not. We can therefore take it that, on the advice given to the Financial Secretary, there ought to be storage for three months.

What I fail completely to understand is why, even assuming storage for three months to be necessary, the credit extended to the brewers should go on for a further nine months beyond that. Consequently, this Amendment seeks to limit the period of credit to the period of storage; or, to put it more accurately, to a short time after the period of storage corresponding to the present short time after the period of brewing.

I trust that the Financial Secretary will accept this Amendment. If he does not, there are some very pertinent questions I should like to ask him. The first is: If somebody has to carry the expenses of keeping beer beyond the time of storage and maturing, why should it be the Government, and therefore the citizens of this country, some but not all of whom drink beer and few of whom drink these somewhat exotic brews, instead of the brewers themselves? Have the brewers reached such a stage of impoverishment under a Tory Government that they are no longer able to carry their beers in storage on their own financial resources for a period of eight or nine months?

The second question is a rather similar one but not the same. Why is it necessary to contemplate the retention of these beers unsold for a period of eight or nine months after the storage has finished? We are told by the Financial Secretary that there are no facilities for storing beer for home consumption in bond. Are there or are there not other facilities? Would it not be possible, if necessary, to provide for the conversion of facilities for storing out of bond into facilities for storing in bond? What, in short, is the reason for this quite extraordinary concession? Why is it made to this particular group of people, and why is it made to these particular kinds of beer?

Now, beer of over 1,070 degrees specific gravity is no ordinary brew. It is not what one gets out of a barrel. It is not even what is commonly called pale ale. It is not Bass and it is not Worthington. It is something in the beer line that nearly blows your head off. It has a number of X's that one staggers to look at. This is indeed strong beer, and I was interested to hear from the Financial Secretary that he was advised that there was competition in this beer from abroad. Lager beer I certainly understand. But I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will allow me to say that I have drunk beer in many parts of the world, and many kinds of beer, but abroad I have never found beer of such an appalling potency as can be concocted by the British brewer when he is put to it. I do not know what he puts in it.

I gather that storage is some of the secret of the composition. But whatever it is made of, it is powerful and expensive stuff, and I should have thought it carried considerable profits with it. Why in regard to this somewhat luxury type of beer should there be a concession of a year's credit? We might very well remember that since hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite came into power a year's credit has come to mean twice as much as it used to, and I suppose it is in some obscure form part of the monetary policy of the Government to give the brewers a year's credit which now, under their other arrangements, is worth about twice as much as it used to before they came into power. I just do not see the reason for it.

Turning to the other kind of beer, there is another interesting question I should like to ask the Financial Secretary. I can imagine that if strong beer is put in a barrel and left there for a time it does, in the manner of even more potent liquors, perhaps become stronger. But why does lager beer have to be kept for three months? What is the result if it is drunk before storage? What is the difference if it is drunk after storage? I have not the least doubt that the Financial Secretary will have taken advice on the matter from the experts in his Ministry. There is, for instance, the Treasury cat—the only cat, I believe, that is kept on Government rations. Has he tried the Treasury cat with lager beer before and after storage? If so, with what result?

This is a very remarkable provision, and to those of us who have not got this expert knowledge it appears wholly unnecessary to extend this provision to lager beer. One agrees that there is some competition with lager beer, but is it really the policy of the Government that in brewing, and, so far as I can make out, only in brewing, an extra year's credit should be given to the British brewer of lager beer because without it he appears unable to compete with Continental lager beer? I cannot believe that that can be the case.

I have put, quite shortly I hope, the points that occur to me, but I trust that the somewhat light nature of some of the comments on heavy beer will not prevent whoever answers for the Government from taking this matter seriously. After all, we have had a rather unfortunate story with the brewing industry and the present Government. I should be out of order in discussing the merits or demerits of a very remarkable Measure dealing with licensed premises in new towns, which without any previous announcement was brought in at a very early stage in this Government's history, and which seemed specially designed to benefit brewers and, so far as I could see, no one else. It is in the light of that sort of Measure, and of the long association of the party opposite with the trade, that we are bound to look critically at these sorts of Clauses.

May I give hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite a useful tip for the next Budget? Do not put beer first. It is usually a matter which it is better to keep rather dark. I agree that the Government have done their best by not mentioning it in the Budget speech, and by making only a small and casual reference to it in the one speech in which it was mentioned. Would it not be easier to tuck the Clauses away right in the middle of the E.P.L. or Income Tax wilderness, where they might perhaps escape early attention? I suggest that, because of the connection of the party opposite with the trade, because of the particular advantages that they have given to the trade in the past, we ought to have a very full explanation of what appears to be a very singular and quite unjustified concession in favour of brewers who have got enough money to carry their own stocks for a year and do not need any Government help to do it.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) confessed that he was not an expert on this subject, and after listening to his speech I think that such a confession was hardly necessary. He seemed to think that certain alcoholic beers get stronger by being kept in the cask. I assure him that that is unscientific, and that the production of alcohol does not go on with storage in casks. I was interested to hear that he had found some beer which made him stagger to look at it. All I can do is to congratulate him on getting his pleasure so cheaply.

Mr. Mitchison

May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the expert opinion he has so kindly given me, and ask him whether, if storage is not required to strengthen the beer, he will tell us what it is meant for?

Mr. Nicholson

In the case of many alcoholic liquors time is needed for blending and development and the various chemical processes which take place. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman does not get the same pleasure from looking at a bottle of port wine as he does from looking at a bottle of strong beer, but wine improves with keeping, and whisky and other inferior forms of spirit, as distinct from gin, improve with keeping.

This is a proper procedure on the part of the Government and in line with various other concessions which have been made, for instance, the concession which was made to wine merchants a few years ago enabling them to rebond vintage port after it had been bottled. I think that it is perfectly proper that when an industry has to keep an excisable article before it can be in the best condition to be sold, it should be relieved of the burden of paying tax and Excise Duty and having to lock it up.

This is on all-fours with the law that applies to spirits and to vintage port. If brewers—and I am not a brewer—are placed in a similar difficult position of having to keep some of their products in bond—or in this case not in bond because there is not the volume of warehouse storage available—that is a perfectly proper concession. I was sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman reverted—I was going to say to type—to a side of his lower nature to make a smear campaign against the brewers and their connection with the Conservative Party. As I say, I am not a brewer, but I tell the House frankly that I do not believe that there is any unworthy connection between the brewing trade and the Conservative Party, and I do not think that sort of smear campaign does the party opposite any good. We are discussing a serious subject, and I think that the Committee could very well be spared that unworthy intervention.

Mr. Bing

Is the hon. Member aware that next, I think, to Mr. Rank the Brewers' Society are the largest contributors to the Aims of Industry?

Mr. Nicholson

If the hon. and learned Member—

The Chairman

Whether that is the case or not, that does not arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The purpose of this Clause is to deal with the position in which certain types of beer require a period during which to mature. It is a fact that what are called strong beers and also beers of the lager type, which is a type of beer rather like Continental beer, do require a certain period in which to mature.

Under the existing law, when beer is brewed the duty becomes payable quite shortly after it is what is technically called "charged." In the case of ordinary beer which goes quickly into circulation no particular difficulty arises. In the case of those beers which require a period in which to mature, the effect of the present law is that the duty has to be paid in some cases some months before the beer can be sold and, therefore, there is perhaps discouragement to the brewing of these particular kinds of beer, and there is imposed on the brewer of these kinds of beer a disability which is not suffered by those who deal in other sorts of liquors since, for them, bonding facilities are available and it is not necessary to pay the duty considerably in advance of sale. Consequently, this Clause was put into the Bill.

I should like to clear up a point which I think misled the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I am sure he appreciates that it is extremely easy even for an hon. and learned Member to misapprehend a Clause of a Bill, and therefore I intend no discourtesy to him when I say that he does not appear wholly to have understood the effect of the Clause. Its effect is this. In the first place, to qualify for the benefits under the Clause, the beer has to be, as subsection (2) makes clear, kept for at least three months. That is, as it were, the qualifying condition. The right to have payment of duty deferred does not arise in the case of any other sort of beer than this. The beer having been kept for three months qualifies for the advantages of the Clause.

Of course, it is not intended, as I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman appears to think, that in all such cases payment of duty should be postponed until the 12th month. As he will see, this is an enabling or authorising Clause. It authorises the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to postpone to a period not later than the 25th day of the 12th month, but it is not intended by any manner of means to exercise that power to postpone except when the period of storage is something like that.

The way in which it is anticipated that this Clause will work, is this. In respect of beer which qualifies by being kept for three months and, therefore, comes within the advantages of the Clause, it will be for the brewer concerned to establish to the satisfaction of the Customs and Excise the period in which generally that brew is kept to mature. If, for example, it is kept for only four months, then the postponement would be for a period of four months; that is, if it is kept on an average for four months, because one cannot tie this mathematically to a precise day. If it is kept for six months then the delay will be for six months. Therefore, the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman—and it was on his own premise a perfectly sound one in favour of the Amendment—falls to the ground. If the Clause were to postpone in all cases for 12 months, even though the period of storage was only three, I think that his criticism would have been justified and his Amendment wholly reasonable.

As I think he will appreciate, both from what I have said and by looking at the somewhat complex terms of the Clause again, a delay of 12 months is the maximum—it is a delay of up to 12 months. There is no intention to exercise that power unless the period of storage is something of that order. I hope that I have succeeded in explaining how the Clause will apply. May I explain why? As the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) pointed out, in the case of beer there are no bonding facilities and therefore the production of these kinds of beer which require storage —and here I come to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering—has given rise to this difficulty. I understand that lager beer requires storage if it is to be drinkable at all. It is not a form of beer which I like.

Mr. I. Mikardo (Reading, South)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I am glad that I carry the hon. Member with me on that point.

It is a fact that it is brewed in a somewhat different way from the ordinary English type of beer, and requires a period in which to settle down. That is the reason for the specific mention of beers of that type which attracted the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. It is also a fact that these are the beers which are mostly in direct competition with imported foreign beers. The present system operates against the English brewer of lager beer and in favour of the foreigner, who in this case pays only Customs duty at the point of importation, quite possibly only very shortly before the sale takes place. whereas the English brewer of this kind of beer has to pay duty in the early stages, when it is in the form of what are somewhat inelegantly called "worts."

The present system therefore operates against the home producer and in favour of the seller of imported beer, and, on balance, I imagine that that is a situation which hon. Members would wish to correct. I hope that I have sufficiently explained that this proposal is confined to those beers which take time to mature and that we have every intention of administering it in a way which will be fair but will give no unfair advantage. We shall exercise the power of postponing the collection of duty for a period which is related to the period of storage.

In those circumstances, I imagine that the arguments which, quite naturally, appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering will strike him as having been largely met. I submit that this is a quite minor but sensible adjustment of the payment of duty. No duty is lost; the only effect is a postponement of the moment of collection.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

The Financial Secretary frequently referred to the question of giving the beer time to mature. Could he explain, for the benefit of my untutored mind, what takes place when beer matures? I have heard a denial from another expert, in another department of this infamous issue, that liquors do not become more dangerous with the time that is allowed to them to mature. My expectation is that in the time of maturing the alcoholic content of the beer—despite what the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) has said—is actually increased and should pay a higher rate of tax. That point has not been explained. I am quite willing to be corrected by the hon. Member if he can tell me what takes place from the point of view of the specific gravity of the beer during the time it is maturing.

The Chairman

That question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Hudson

From the point of view in instructing us—particularly the un-instructed—on the question of the taxation of beer, after a long explanation about its maturing, surely I may be told whether it is true that in the maturing the things that I expect takes place do take place.

The Chairman

That is not a question of the taxation of beer, but the quality of it.

Mr. Hudson

I want to know whether the quality of beer has anything to do with its specific gravity. If there were to be no alcohol at all in beer it would be a perfect beer, but is it called a matured beer when there is an increase in the alcoholic content, and is there such an increase in the maturing process? That is what I want to know.

The Chairman

I daresay, but that question does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Gaitskell

Surely the Financial Secretary has explained that the whole purpose of this provision is to do justice to brewers desiring to brew a beer which takes longer to mature. I think it is relevant for my hon. Friend to ask exactly what is the advantage or disadvantage of that. In passing, I may say that I do not accept the Financial Secretary's statement that this involves no cost. If I catch your eye later, Sir Charles, I hope to explain my point. If I am right and this provision does involve the Government in extra costs the question arises: what are we getting for all this?

Mr. Nicholson

Perhaps I might explain to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) that alcohol is the result of a ferment. When the ferment has ceased there can be no further production of alcohol. Whisky can be left in a bottle or a cask and there can be no increase in the alcoholic content. I imagine that the same thing applies to beer. I hope we shall be saved from the hon. Member's idea of a beer containing no alcohol.

Mr. Mitchison

What happens if the water evaporates?

Mr. Nicholson

That is a very important question. If the water in a cask of whisky evaporates the same quantity of alcohol remains. The strength of what remains might change, but there is no increase in the volume of alcohol.

Mr. Mikardo

I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I desire to leave these deep waters in which we have been immersed in the last few moments and return to the observations of the Financial Secretary. I am sure that the Committee will be grateful to him for his very clear explanation of the way this Clause is intended to work, but nothing in what he has said can disguise the fact that the effect of this provision is to put the brewers in a favourable position as compared with other manufacturers and traders.

To revert to the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), it seems, for some obscure reason—I do not wish to ascribe any improper motives—that of all the people engaged in commerce and industry it is always the brewers who are the favoured children of the party opposite. Brewers—and brewers of strong beer—are not the only people who have to hold stocks for a period. They are not even the only people who have to hold for a period stocks on which they have paid some form of tax in advance of their being able to use them. Why should it be that the manufacturers of other commodities and people engaged in other industries—some of which are much more vital for our economic welfare than the industry of manufacturing beer—are expected—

Mr. Nicholson

What tax is paid by them?

Mr. Mikardo

If the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) desires to intervene to ask a question, and follows the usual courtesies by getting on his hind legs to do so, I shall be delighted to give way.

Mr. Nicholson

Goods on which Purchase Tax is paid do not have to mature before they are in the best possible condition.

Mr. Mikardo

I am hoping to quote some examples of what I mean. I did not mention Purchase Tax, but there are some industries in which Purchase Tax has to be paid and then the goods have to mature. It is a fact that other industrialists are expected to bear this as part of their ordinary costs, and they do so, including many in industries which do not make anything like the fat profits that are made in the brewing industry. I do not see why it should be thought that they have to come along and successfully squeal to the Treasury about a little addition to their cost and get some special consideration for it.

In the case of Purchase Tax, people sometimes have to hold the goods for periods very much longer than 12 months, not in order that those goods shall mature, but for other reasons as part of the normal hazards of trade. They have to pay in advance and recover the tax later. Take any firm of manufacturers which uses imported components, which are dutiable through the Customs. There, again, in many factories in this country there are imported components used on which the tax has been paid and which, because of the length of the production cycle or for other reasons, are held for a very long time before a sale is actually made. These manufacturers do not go crying on the Treasury shoulder and saying, "Can we owe the tax until we get it from those who buy from us?"

Take the example of a manufacturer who imports castings. In recent years, unhappily, we have imported a lot of castings, which are not usable until they go through a maturing process. They do not go through the process which the hon. Member for Farnham described in the case of beer, but they go through some maturing process, and not merely are they not so good until they go through it, but they are unusable. A manufacturer may import castings on which he pays a 20 per cent. duty, and he has to hold these things for a long time until he can use them. He does not squeal about that. Why should the brewer get exceptional treatment and advantage in delay on paying his tax which the purchaser of other products—I repeat, in many cases products more vital to our economy —does not get, and, so far as I know, has not even asked for?

I shall not deal with the financial advantage in this and the cost to the Treasury because my right hon. Friend has already indicated that he will deal with those points. I merely make the point that the case which the Financial Secretary has made in respect of the Amendment could be applied far more widely, and since it is not applied widely I see no reason why it should be applied for the benefit of people in one particular industry, which does fairly well anyway, and which always seems to get concessions from Conservative Governments.

Mr. Bing

The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) asked why we on this side of the Committee think that his party is in the pockets of the brewers?

Mr. Nicholson

That is an irrelevant question. You, Sir Charles, forbade me to reply to the hon. and learned Member when he made an irrelevant intervention, and I ask you now to rule him out of order.

The Chairman

The hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) should not proceed with that matter.

Mr. Bing

I was merely going to say that, for whatever reason, this Clause is designed to favour a wealthy corporation and wealthy people, and gives them an advantage which the Financial Secretary was not prepared to give to the small man, who is left with a wireless set on his hands on which already he has paid Purchase Tax. The small man purchased it never knowing whether, in fact, there would be a change in taxation, and he will now have to pay the tax himself. He is getting no consideration, but the brewer is given express consideration.

On the technical side, there is much more to it. It is a far greater concession than perhaps the Committee at first realised. We have not heard from the Financial Secretary what is this type of strong beer. It is noticeable that the "Brewers' Almanack" which, for the benefit of the brewers calculates the amount of duty, stops short of 50 degrees and does not give any further calculations. I have just been doing a little calculation on my own, and I hope that the Financial Secretary will deal with this point. He knows that under the beer regulations a 6 per cent. allowance is given for waste. When the brewer comes to prepare a strong beer of this sort there is, in fact, very little waste at all. There is probably only waste of 1 per cent. to 2 per cent., so that the brewer is already getting a 4 per cent. concession from the Treasury. He is entitled to sell 4 per cent. of his beer duty free and yet charge the customer the full amount of the duty.

I reckon, on that—and I hope the Financial Secretary will give me his figures if mine are incorrect—that if we allow for a 2 per cent. waste, which I think is about the waste on beer as strong as that, the brewer at least gains £1 on every barrel which he brews. So already he is getting a £1 rebate from the Treasury. Why should this man get this particular rebate from the Treasury when he is already given concessions which are denied to the poor man who is a small retailer? That is the reason why some Members on this side of the Committee think that these concessions to the brewers are not just coincidences. They flow from a deliberate policy of the party opposite designed to benefit the brewers and not to benefit the small man.

The Financial Secretary went on to say that the brewer was in some difficulty in competition with the importer of lager beer. For instance, the beer had to be stored for the purpose of maturity. It should be noted, however, that he is only storing it for three months or so, and already there is an advantage given to the maker of lager beer at home over the maker of such beer from abroad. As the Financial Secretary knows, if he ever understood the last Clause of the Finance Bill he helped to pilot through Parliament, there has been a renewal of the countervailing duty imposed against foreign brewers amounting to 10d. per bulk barrel. That would certainly be the equivalent of the amount of interest that would be payable over the period of three months for the duty payable on the storage of one bulk barrel in Britain.

What is being said is that, despite the great political and financial assistance which the brewing industry is getting, we now know that it is not efficient enough to compete with the foreign brewers even when given a preferential tariff over them. That is not a very good advertisement for the principal industry which backs hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Finally, we ought to have a few words about this strong beer. Who is it to be sold to and at what price is it to be retailed? Why is it that we should give any concession in order to encourage it? There are many popular delusions at the moment about the strength of beer. The fact is that the great majority of beers which are sold are extremely weak, and the Committee would be far better occupied in raising the minimum strengths, because otherwise my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) will be deceived. There are going out with beer labels on them bottles which, I assure my hon. Friends, contain liquid that is little better than coloured water, and the Committee would be much better occupied in dealing with that serious problem before this one.

Mr. J. Hudson

If I am deceived in that matter why should I not be satisfied?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Bing

All I was hoping was that a discussion would reveal how satisfied my hon. Friend ought to be with the brewers' present practice. I think the Committee ought to be told why we want this strong beer. How is it to be sold? How much of it is it expected will be sold? What are the estimates for the sale of beer of this strength? At what price is it to be sold? We do not wish to give a concession to the brewers if they sell the beer at such a price that they make a huge profit over and above the amount of duty paid.

More information is called for from the Parliamentary Secretary about the total quantity of beer and whether any assurances have been given to the hon. Gentleman by the Brewers' Society as to the price at which this beer is to be sold. Is it proposed to market it in bottle or cask and, if in bottle, will he see that they are of the measure they are purported to be? As hon. Members know, while it is an offence to sell vinegar without marking on the bottle the exact quantity contained in it, the Brewers' Society can sell any quantity they like of the next best thing to it without giving any such indication to the public. If special facilities are being given to the makers of those strong beers, we ought to know a little more from the Financial Secretary about where it is coming from and how much it is.

Mr. Gaitskell

My hon. Friends have made some serious criticisms of this proposal and have asked a number of penetrating questions which I hope the Financial Secretary will endeavour to answer. I want to add one or two to the list. The hon. Gentleman said that this concession would cost the Treasury nothing—

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

My exact words were that there was no loss of duty; that there was a postponement of payment.

Mr. Gaitskell

But there is a loss of revenue in the sense, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that since the duty is not paid the Government have to borrow more money in the intervening period, and they now have to pay higher rates of interest for that money as a result of Government policy. So there is a cost amounting to the interest charged on the money outstanding for the longer period. At the same time, that is exactly the advantage of this concession to the brewers and I do not imagine the Financial Secretary will say that it is no advantage to them. If, however, I am wrong and there is no financial advantage to them, perhaps he will explain?

Would he tell us, then, how much, in terms of additional interest cost, the concession is likely to amount to? Again—I presume, it will be the same sum—how much will the brewers get out of this concession in terms of hard cash? I would also like to ask a few questions about other aspects of the matter. I do not want to get into trouble, with you, Sir Charles, so I will not refer to the kind of beer, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to satisfy both my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) at the same time; although that may be a little difficult, but I hope he will try.

I want to know what proportion of the total output of beer is likely to be affected? Are we to understand that it is quite a substantial affair, that a lot of strong beer will get this concession? Will it have an effect on the proportion of different beers brewed? Is this a negligible concession that none of us will notice or will those of us who frequent such places find that in the clubs and pubs there will be now a definite change in the type of beer on sale?

Finally, would the hon. Gentleman say why it is that only now is this concession being made? I do not recall being asked by anybody, when I was Chancellor, to make such a concession. Presumably it has not been pressed for before, because I suppose earlier Tory Chancellors would have conceded it if it had been pressed for. What is the reason why it is being asked for this year? I do not imagine that it can have anything to do with the Coronation, because I see from the Bill that the concession does not come into force until after the date of the Coronation. Could the hon. Gentleman enlighten us on this point and, at the same time, reply to the various other questions put by my hon. Friends?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I will indeavour so to do and I will reply first to the hon. Member for Reading, South (Mr. Mikardo), who raised the question of the comparison betwen the time at which duty becomes payable on beer and on other commodities. While it is always easy to adduce aspects of the matter one way or the other, hon. Members should recall that, in general, beer pays duty at an earlier stage than almost any other dutiable commodity. If I am not appearing to speak Irish, beer pays duty before it is beer. It pays duty when it is worts, that is, the unfermented malted fluid. That is perhaps material when we come to comparisons such as the hon. Gentleman suggested with other commodities which, at the very worst, do not pay duty until they have come into being.

Secondly, if we take the comparison between beer and other alcoholic liquors, in my earlier speech I drew attention to the fact that beer alone of alcoholic liquids does not have bonding facilities, with the consequent postponement of payment of duty. As regards the comparison which the Gentleman made with imported goods of other kinds, it is the fact that many of them can be warehoused and the duty becomes payable not at the moment of importation, but of leaving the warehouse. Therefore, though we are all entitled to our opinions, the comparisons which he made do not affect the main proposition, which is that it is somewhat unreasonable that in the case of these beers the payment of duty should fall on them at a time so inevitably in advance of the time at which they could possibly be sold.

Mr. Bing

I think I am right in saying that the provision contained in the Customs and Excise Act passed recently was to provide that the duty on beer is not normally paid until the 25th of the month following the month in which the brewing took place, although it is true that the estimate of original gravity is made of the worts.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

No, the duty falls to be paid on the 25th day of the month following that in which it is charged. That formal wording means, as I understand it, the time at which the then unfermented worts were inspected and the specific gravity taken.

In any event, whatever comparisons may be made—and we all tend to make comparisons to favour our argument—it is the fact that one starts on the basis that beer pays duty under the ordinary law at an early stage. In the case of beer which is brewed and quickly distributed, I do not think that causes any unreasonable hardship and there is no proposal in this Clause to alter it. It is only in the case where maturing is necessary for the marketing of that beer in proper condition that this provision applies. I understand, Sir Charles, that I am not allowed to reply to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) as to the precise effect of that process, but perhaps I shall not be subjected to your censure if I say that, generally speaking, the processes are not such as would cause him undue alarm.

Mr. J. Hudson

It would not in any case.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In that case, that is an assurance that is easy to give.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) went into the interesting question of the effect on the Revenue of the postponement of duty. As I said earlier, no duty is lost but payment is postponed. That raises an interesting economic argument depending upon whether, at the time of that postponement, the Government are borrowing and are compelled to borrow as the result of that postponement. That raises a most interesting matter on which it would be easy to speculate.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman, however, that when discussing far larger sums of money on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, he rather took me to task for suggesting that the system of initial allowances, with their postponement of tax, cost anything at all. That argument is not wholly consistent with that which the right hon. Gentleman is now adducing.

Mr. Gaitskell

I did not say that the initial allowances cost nothing. What I said was that they were not a very heavy cost, as the Financial Secretary had suggested. But can the hon. Gentleman tell us how much duty will be lost here? It will be lost in the first year, at any rate, and unless the system is changed it will be lost for ever.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the figures for the amount postponed. Obviously, a precise figure must depend on the degree to which this concession is used and the degree to which these types of beer are subsequently brewed. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is a matter for the trades concerned: So far as we can estimate, however, duty which would otherwise have been paid in 1953–54 to the extent of £350,000 will be posponed. The amount of the postponement in the following year will be £65,000, and then the curve will pass completely out.

I stress that that is not duty that is lost —it is duty postponed. Whether there is any marginal loss to the Exchequer as a result of interest calculations is a speculation in which we can all indulge.

Mr. Joseph T. Price (Westhoughton)

Surely, if the hon. Gentleman applies that logic and reasoning to the general revenue payable to the Crown, if we all postpone payment of our Income Tax for 12 months, the State would be in a hopeless position.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

So would the hon. Member. I am not saying that the postponement of payment of duty even of what is quite a small amount in proportion to the very large yield of revenue, is negligible. What I am saying is that it is a postponement, and not an actual remission of duty.

As to the extent to which it will operate, so far as one can see it is not likely to have very much effect in altering the present pattern of consumption of beer. What would have been likely to happen had this step not been taken would be that probably rather less of these beers would have been brewed. So far as we can see, therefore, none of the enlivening consequences in the public houses, to which one or two hon. Members referred, are likely to happen.

This is, perhaps, not a very great matter in the light of the other subjects which we shall in due course be discuss- ing. But it seems to us to be reasonable, as I think the debate has confirmed, that, subject to the safeguards to which I have referred, and which I shall not weary the Committee by repeating, and in order that the duty should be paid at a reasonable time in the case, and in the case only, of the beers that qualify by being stored for the three-months' period, and in view, also, of the absence, in the case of beer, of the bonding facilities which are available, of course, to the manufacturers of all other forms of alcoholic liquor, there should be this sensible provision.

This debate originated on the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to reduce the period from 12 months to four months. We have had on this first Amendment a general discussion, perhaps rather fortunately on the whole purposes of the Clause. If I have been led into going a little wide, it has not been without temptation offered. It has been perhaps useful that although the Amendment was itself narrow, we have been able to discuss the main purpose and effect of the Clause.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison

The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had misunderstood the Clause. I reassure him that I had not misunderstood it. This is what puzzles me: why take power to extend this extraordinary credit on these extraordinary beers for 12 months? If it is meant only to be used for the period of store, why not say so?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

For this reason: that there may well be cases of beers where the period of storage exceeds 12 months.

Mr. Mitchison

Why not say so?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

We do not propose to take power to postpone for more than 12 months. It would follow from the hon. and learned Member's proposal that if storage were for 18 months, there should be a postponement for 18 months.

Mr. Mitchison

Whichever is the less.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

That would be administratively inconvenient in that it would involve keeping open the books for a long time, and it would not be worth while. In all these arrangements there has to be a certain administrative common sense. The greater part of the beers concerned mature within this period, and it seems to us, therefore, that the easiest way of doing so is to allow for a maximum of 12 months. There is, further, the difficulty that if we lay down precisely the exact period of maturity as being the limit, difficulties might arise where the limit was exceeded by a day or two. Our proposal seems the common-sense way of handling what is not, perhaps, a very complex matter.

Mr. Bing

Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to deal with the point which I made, and will he give to the Committee the actual quantities of beer of over 70 degrees which, he considers, will be affected by this procedure, and the quantity of lager? If he is not in possession of those figures or the estimates for the future, perhaps he could give the actual quantity of beer of over 70 degrees which was sold last year.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not have those figures with me. If they are obtainable, I shall be only too glad to send them to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Bing

Surely we ought not to pass the Clause if the figures are not even obtainable. The hon. Gentleman has asked the Committee to pass a Clause to give a concession to the brewers. Now he tells us that he does not know whether they have brewed any beer of this sort, and that he does not know whether they will do so. This is carrying the thing to a fantastic degree. Would it not be possible for this matter to be delayed, at any rate until the Committee were in a position to know whether the Government's proposals will affect a single pint of beer?

Do not the Brewers' Society have these figures? I see their representative sitting on the back benches. He should not be there—he should be on the Front Bench. As with the representatives of the Cities of London and Westminster, there should be a tradition that the senior member of the Brewers' Society should be permitted to sit on the Conservative Front Bench, at least for the period of the Budget debates. Perhaps, the hon. Gentleman is in a position now to give the Committee the information with which he ought to have opened the debate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants it, I can now give it. I cannot break down the figure between the two types dealt with by the Clause; he will have to have it all in one. The amount of the two kinds involved over the last annual period was 30,000 bulk barrels.

Mr. Bing

I say once again that this is extremely unsatisfactory. If it is only 30,000 bulk barrels, and we do not know which is strong beer and which is lager, it is quite impossible for the Committee to come to a decision on this matter, because the conditions which apply to the one and to the other are quite different. The 6 per cent. waste which is given in regard to the strong beer already gives the makers of that a considerable premium. There may be a case in regard to lager beer, but there is certainly no case in regard to strong beer. I do not think that any beer of this sort whatever is brewed anywhere in this country.

This is merely a piece of advertisement pushed into the Budget by the Brewers' Society, who will now be able to say, "We are going to brew beer of such a strength that the Government have to make special provision for it." I challenge the hon. Gentleman to say on the Report stage whether any barrels of this strength were brewed last year and, if so, how many? If it were only 30,000 bulk barrels altogether it seems to me that the English lager industry is not doing as well as it should and so far as the other part is concerned, it does not seem that any strong beer is brewed at all. Are we to have figures on this at any time?

Mr. Gaitskell

Once again, the Financial Secretary has not been very successful in satisfying hon. Members on this side of the Committee. In particular, he tried to answer two of my questions but failed completely even to try to answer the third. That was, why is this change being made now? Further, he has failed to give any real indication of whether it was necessary to make the change. Is the hon. Gentleman claiming that the brewers are suffering serious hardship and need a little relief, or what is the reason? The hon. Gentleman must make an attempt to reply to that question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

If the right hon. Member so desires; the question why this is only done now is almost the oldest question in the world. One answer is that we live in a progressive world. It really is not an argument against a reform—which, on its merits, no one seriously tried to controvert—to say that it has not been done before. The reason it is done now is that it appeared on the facts of the matter and with particular reference to the competition of foreign beers in the lager class that it was a reasonable thing to do now. I cannot say whether representations were or were not made to the right hon. Member and his predecessor. I do not know, nor is it my duty to know—

Mr. Percy Shurmer (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

They did not subscribe to our party funds.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I do not think we shall be helped by observations of that sort. I hope the hon. Member will allow us to discuss these matters on a reasonable basis. I am trying to put a reasonable argument.

The position is that foreign competition has stiffened somewhat. That, no doubt, has made the desirability of this provision somewhat greater than it was during the time when the right hon. Member for Leeds, South was responsible. It seems in the circumstances of

today—and I do not think that the contrary has been seriously argued—that this is a reasonable thing to do as a result of the competition by which our own breweries in these particular lines will otherwise be adversely affected vis-à-vis the foreigner.

I pointed out earlier that under the present system the foreigner will generally pay the duty on lager beers at a stage considerably subsequent to the stage at which the English brewer pays it. That is why I should have thought the right hon. Member would agree that it is not an unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the reason is that this is the first year in which the brewers have asked for it to be done?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I have said that I do not know and it does not seem to be my business to know whether or not it was discussed with previous Administrations. Perhaps the right hon. Member may know.

Question put, "That 'twelfth,' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 262.

Division No. 175.] AYES [5.55 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Drewe, C.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Brooman-White, R. C. Duncan, Capt. J. A L.
Alport, C. J. M. Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Duthie, W. S.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Billiard, D. G. Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Bullus, Wing-Commander E. E. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Arbuthnot, John Burden, F. F. A. Erroll, F. J.
Ashton, H. (Chelmsford) Butcher, Sir Herbert Finlay, Graeme
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Fisher, Nigel
Astor, Hon. J. J. Campbell, Sir David Fleelwood-Hesketh, R. F
Baker, P. A. D. Carr, Robert Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Cary, Sir Robert Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Baldwin, A. E. Channon, H. Fort, R.
Banks, Col. C. Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Foster, John
Barber, Anthony Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Barlow, Sir John Cole, Norman Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Baxter, A. B. Colegate, W A. Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Beamish, Mai. Tufton Conant, Maj. R. J. E. Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Beach, Maj. Hicks Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Gammans, L. D.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Cooper-Key, E. M. Garner-Evans, E. H.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.) Cranborne, Viscount Glyn, Sir Ralph
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Godber, J. B.
Bennett, William (Woodside) Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E. Gough, C. F. H.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Crouch, R. F. Gower, H. R.
Birch, Nigel Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Graham, Sir Fergus
Bishop, F. P. Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Gridley, Sir Arnold
Black, C. W. Davidson, Viscountess Grimond, J.
Boothby, R. J. G. Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Bossom, A. C. Deedes, W. F. Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Bowen, E. R. Digby, S. Wingfield Hall, John (Wycombe)
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A. Dodds-Parker, A. D. Harden, J. R. E.
Boyle, Sir Edward Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Hare, Hon. J. H.
Braine, B. R. Conner, P. W. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Doughty, C. J. A. Harris, Reader (Heston)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G (Bristol, N.W.) Drayson, G. B. Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield) Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Schefield, Lt.-Col. W.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Soon, R, Donald
Harvie-Walt, Sir George Markham, Major S. F. Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Hay, John Marlowe, A. A. H. Shepherd, Williams
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H. Marples, A. E. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Heald, Sir Lionel Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Heath, Edward Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton) Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Higgs, J. M, C. Maude, Angus Smyth, Brit. J. G. (Norwood)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Maudling, R. Snaddon, W. McN.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Soames, Capt. C.
Hint, Geoffrey Medlicott, Brig. F. Spearman, A. C. M.
Holland-Martin, C. J. Mellor, Sir John Speir, R. M.
Hollis, M. C. Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Spent, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Lord John Morrison, John (Salisbury) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Mott-Radclyffe, C. E. Stevens, G. P.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P. Nabarro, G. D. N. Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Horobin, I. M. Nicholls, Harmar Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives) Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Storey, S.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Nield, Basil (Chester) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J. Nugent, G.R. H. Studholme, H. G.
Hurd, A. R. Nutting, Anthony Summers, G. S.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Oaksshott, H. D. Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M. Odey, G. W. Taylor, Williams (Bradford, N.)
Jennings, R. O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Teeling, W.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Jones, A. (Hall Green) Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare) Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Kaberry, D. Osborne, C. Tilney, John
Keeling, Sir Edward Partridge, E. Touche, Sir Gordon
Kerr H. W. Peake, Rt. Hon. O Turner, H. F. L.
Lambert, Hon. G. Perkins, W. R. D. Turton, R. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K. Pete, Brig. C. H. M. Vane, W. M. F.
Leather, E. H. C. Payton, J. W. W. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Legge-Bourke Maj. E. A. H. Pickthorn, K. W. M. wade, D. W.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Pitman, I. J. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)
Lindsay, Martin Powell, J. Enoch Walker-Smith, D. C.
Llewellyn, D. T. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0. L. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Profumo, J. D. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C. Raikes, Sir Victor Watkinon, H. A.
Longden, Gilbert Rayner, Brig. R. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Low, A. R. W. Redmayne, M. Wellwood, W.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Rees-Davies, W. R. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Remnant, Hon. P. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Renton, D. L. M. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
McAddm, S. J. Robertson, Sir David Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
McCallum, Major D. Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.) Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Macdonald, Sir Peter Robson Brown, W. Wills, G.
McKibbin, A. J. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Roper, Sir Harold Wood, Hon. R.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard York, C.
Maclean, Fitzroy Russell, R. S.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. lain (Enfield, W.) Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty) Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur MR. Vosper and
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Sandys, Rt. Hon. D. Mr. Richard Thompson.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Boardman, H. Crosland, C. A. R.
Adams, Richard Bowden, H. W. Crewman, R. H. S.
Albu, A. H. Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Cullen, Mrs. A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Brockway, A. F. Dames, P.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Brook, Dryden (Halifax) Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Attlee. Rt. Hon. C. R. Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Awbery, S. S. Brown, Thomas (Ince) Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Bacon, Miss Alice Burke, W. A. Davies, Harold (Leek)
Baird, J. Burton, Miss F. E. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Balfour, A. Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) de Freitas, Geoffrey
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J. Callaghan, L. J. Deer, G.
Bartley, P. Carmichael, J. Delargy, H. J.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Castle, Mrs. B. A. Dodds, N. N.
Bence, C. R. Champion, A. J. Donnelly, D. L.
Bern, Hon. Wedgwood Chapman, W. D. Driberg, T. E. N.
Benson, G. Chetwynd, G. R. Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Beswlck, F. Clunie, J. Ed., Rt. Hon. J. C.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Coldrick, W. Edelman, M.
Bing, G. H. C. Collick, P. H. Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Blackburn, F. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Blenkinsop, A. Cove, W. G. Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Blyton, W. R. Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft) Lipton, Lt. Col M. Rots, William
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Logan, D. G. Royle, C.
Fernyhough, E. MacColl, J. E. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Fienburgh, W. McGhee, H. G. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Finch, H. J. McGovern, J. Short, E. W.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.) Mclnnes, J. Shurmer, P. L. E.
Follick, M. McKay, John (Wallsend) Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Foot, M. M. McLeavy, F. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Forman, J. C. MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McNeil, Rt. Hon. H. Skeffington, Arthur
Freeman, John (Watford) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Freeman, Peter (Newport) Mainwaring, W. H. Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgfield)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Gibson, C. W. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Glanville, James Mann, Mrs. Jean Sorenson, R. W.
Gooch, E. G. Manuel, A. C. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Sparks J A
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossondale) Mason, Roy Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield) Mayhew, C. P. Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Mellish, R. J. Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Grey, C. F. Messer, F. Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mikardo, Ian Stross, Dr. Barnett
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanlly) Mitchison, G. R. Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Griffiths, William (Exchange) Monslow, W. Swingler, S.T.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Moody. A. S. Sylester, G. O.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Mortal, R. Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)
Hamilton, W. W. Mortis, Percy (Swansea, W.) Taytor, John (West Lothian)
Hannan, W. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.) Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpheth)
Hargreves, A. Mort, D. L. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.) Moyle, A. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hasting, S. Mulley, F. W. Thomas, lowerth (Rhondda, W.)
Hayman, F. H. Murray, J. D. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, SE.) Nally, W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis) Neal Harold (Bolsover) Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Herbison, Miss M. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon, P, J. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hobson, C. R. Oldfield, W. H. Thornton, E.
Holman, P. Oliver, G. H. Thurtle, Ernest.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Orbach, M. Timmons, J.
Houghton, Douglas Oswald, T. Tommy, F.
Hoy, J. H. Padley, W. E. Turner-Samuels, M.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley) Usborne, H. C.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Viant, S. P.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pannell, Charles Watkins, T. E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Pargiter, G A. Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Paton, J. Weitzmann, D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe) Pearson, A. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Irvine, J. B. (Edge Hill) Pearson, A. Wells, William (Walsall)
Irvine, W. J. (Wood Green) Peart, T. F. West, D. G.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A. Plummer, Sir Leslie Wheeldon, W. E.
Janner, B. Popplewell, E. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T. Porter, G.
Jeger George (Goole) Price, Joseph T.(Westhoughton) White, Henry (Derbyshire, NE.)
Jeger Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.) Price, M. Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.) Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Johnson, James. (Rugby) Proctor, W. T. Wigg, George
Jones, David (Hartlepool) Pryde, D. J. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B
Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Pursey, Cmdr. H. Wilkins, W. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Rankin, John Willey, F. T.
Keenan, W. Reeves, J. Williams, David (Neath)
Kenyon C. Reid, Thomas (Swindon) William, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Reid, William (Camlachie) Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
King, Dr. H. M. Rhodes, H. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kinley, J. Richards, R. Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Leo, Frederick (Newton) Robens, Rt. Hon. A. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Leo, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Yates, V. F.
Lewis, Arthur Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Lindgren, G. S. Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Arthur Allen and Mr. Wallace.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing

I think that the Committee is entitled to a little more information, and perhaps some correction, from the Financial Secretary as to the meaning of what he has just told the Committee—I hope he will confirm whether I am right or wrong—that this Clause affects only 30,000 bulk barrels of beer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I said that for the last period for which I could give the hon. and learned Member figures that was the amount of beer which would come within the provisions of this Clause. That is not quite the same thing.

Mr. Bing

So be it.

If the "Brewers' Almanack" is to be trusted, the total production of bulk barrels of beer in 1952 was 24,671,000. So what the hon. Gentleman has intro- duced the Clause to deal with is one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the total beer of this country. This seems to me a most extraordinary concession to have made. Why should the brewers of one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the beer of this country be singled out for preferential treatment? Why should they get a financial advantage denied to everyone else? Why, for example, are the manufacturers of tobacco, who seem to me to be in a very similar position of having to pay the duty in advance and of not being able to recoup themselves until they have sold the product, not entitled to the same advantage? Why are the brewers singled out for this?

Why—I ask the Financial Secretary this again; I am sure he will see the implication which might be put on his lack of information—is he unable to say what is the amount of strong beer concerned? What is the sort of view which the Committee might well take if the Financial Secretary does not know? I am sure that we all acquit him of favouring any particular interest, I am sure that he is doing this perfectly blindly; his qualification so far has been that he has not understood either of the two Clauses that have been introduced. But the Chancellor is an able and brilliant man; why has he put up somebody who did not understand what he was talking about?

Perhaps the answer is that it was undesirable that anyone should be allowed to come to the Dispatch Box on that side of the House who knew what the facts were. Supposing it turned out that there was only one manufacturer of strong beer. Are we being asked to give a particular duty concession to one particular brewer without any information as to the number of barrels which this concession affects? That is the implication, when the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us how many barrels refer to strong beer and how many barrels refer to lager. Why should we be dealing with one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the total beer of the country? Why should that be put specially in the Budget? Why should this particular hardship have so struck hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Is it just one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the brewers who are in difficulties, and is there some particular reason why this one-eighth of 1 per cent. should be favoured above the other brewers? I hope that the hon. Gentleman has used wisely the time of the Division. No doubt his vote was needed in the Lobby, but after that he could have made some inquiries, because I cannot believe that the Treasury could have consented to such a Clause being put in the Finance Bill without having any information to put before the Chancellor showing him what were the particular beers affected by it.

If the hon. Gentleman cannot answer, perhaps this is one of the questions which is dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps this is a matter of patronage rather than of beer. It bears all that imprint. Why are we asked to deal with one-eighth of 1 per cent.? Concerning that amount, should we not at least be able to identify what it is? But the hon. Gentleman does not even know when he talks of one-eighth of 1 per cent. of the total amount of beer produced what beer he is talking about.

Before we pass from this Clause, we are entitled to have, if not from the Financial Secretary then from the Leader of the House or the Minister of Food, some indication which particular sort of beer they are talking about. Strong beer, according to the advertisements, is the best possible sort of food, and, no doubt, a good substitute for red meat. Perhaps the Minister of Food can help out the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and tell us what beers the Committee is asked to talk about today.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has put his finger on what is the real defect in this Clause, because the majority of hon. Members present at the moment do not really know what is involved. I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend, and, at the same time, perhaps give a little time to the Financial Secretary in which to collect the necessary information which will enable him to deal with the point that has been raised.

I do not want to go as far as my hon. and learned Friend in unduly baiting the Financial Secretary, although the hon. Gentleman is supported at the moment by distinguished Members of the House, to whom my hon. and learned Friend referred—the Leader of the House and the Minister of Food. But, looking around them, I see on the benches opposite another expert who may be able to throw more light on the matter. I refer to the hon. Member who happens to be my representative in this House, because I reside in his constituency—the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant). I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, and I hope he will come to the rescue of his hon. Friend, because, in view of his long experience in this particular industry and in this particular field, the hon. Member for Wokingham knows a good deal more than the Financial Secretary or any other hon. or right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench.

Mr. J. Hudson

We shall all have our particular reasons for supporting various Amendments affecting liquor and the liquor trade, and, naturally, my reasons will not always coincide with those advanced by some of my hon. Friends, but I am certainly now in the position of being able to support this Amendment wholeheartedly.

I think it is very sad that we are dealing with a very small part of the total liquor produced in this country—about one-thousandth part. The 30,000 bulk barrels which have been mentioned represent about one-thousandth part of the total of 30 million bulk barrels produced each year. I wish we were able to deal with the whole of the 30 million barrels, because, as a Royal Commission once pointed out, it is the character of the liquor trade to tell falsehoods, and they said so quite explicitly, though perhaps in gentler language than I am using. They said that the trade tells falsehoods about the commodity which it purveys. A Royal Commission said that about the advertisements which the trade used about the contents of their barrels and bottles.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bowles)

The hon. Gentleman seemed to say at the beginning of his speech that he was speaking to some Amendment. Will he say which one it is, because the one he has been talking about has not been selected by the Chair, and the question before the Committee is: "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Hudson

I am obliged to you for the correction, Mr. Bowles. I am speaking on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and I am saying that it would have been a better Clause to stand part of the Bill if this issue could have been settled; namely, that all the liquor produced, and particularly the liquor in the 30,000 barrels which now come within the scope of the Clause, could have been brought in, and if we could have had a clear notion of what it was that we were buying when these 30,000 barrels are offered to us.

The Temporary Chairman

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but he is trying to argue an Amendment that has not been selected, which he cannot do on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." His remarks are, therefore, slightly out of order.

Mr. Hudson

I am deeply grateful to you, Mr. Bowles, for saying that they are slightly out of order. I must make a further slight deviation in order to bring my remarks to a close and meet your requirements.

I only wish to say that this House would be in a much better position in all the debates that take place on this matter if we were rather more precise in the descriptions that have been made of the benefits that we are supposed to be conferring on the people in the various Acts and Regulations that have been passed, and, as I am quite sure that in all these disputes we confer no benefits upon them at all, I was only hoping that we might have had the chance, on this occasion, to have said precisely what it is that we are doing.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

On the assumption that the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) really desired his speech to be treated as a reasoned argument, I will certainly try to give him such information as he may have desired. In the first place, I was much struck by the fact that, on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," he seemed to be indicating his criticism of the Clause itself on the grounds that it affected so small a proportion of the beer brewed, a fact which he might naturally have deduced from the very small effect on the revenue shown by the figures which I gave to his right hon. Friend at an earlier stage, but the various tirades in which he has indulged on this general topic do not seem to me to be quite consistent with the true dimensions of this proposal, as he now, at last, appears to understand it.

As regards the amount of beer which would be within the provisions of this Clause, taking the figures for the latest available period, I gave a figure of 30,000 bulk barrels, covering both lager and strong beer. I can, perhaps, add to that, if hon. Members are interested, the fact that the lager element is approximately 5,300 barrels, and the rest is made up of rather less than 25,000 barrels of strong beer. On the question which beers it will apply to, it is the fact that it will apply to any beer brewed by any brewer who brings the brewing of his beer within the conditions of the Clause. That is the provision which we are asking the Committee to accept, and it will be for the brewers themselves to decide whether or not they wish to bring themselves within the provisions of the Clause. If the Committee decides that this is a proper provision, the Customs and Excise will operate it in respect of any brewer who can bring himself within the provisions of the Clause.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.